' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN. (CHAIRMAN).-Ikram-ul-Haq has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and Chief Engineer, Punjab Building Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 4th July, 1982 and 2nd September, 1982 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with full back benefits of service.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :- ' The appellant was allowed to proceed on deputation abroad on 12th December, 1975 for period of 5 years with Messrs Muhammad Alhaj Ahmad Abdul Qadir. Contractor Madina. The deputation period was to expire on 12th December, 1980. In the year 1977 the appellant left the services with the said Firm and joined the Government Department of Saudi Arabia without prior permission of the Department/authority and did not even join the Department after the lapse of 5 years. The Central Government vide its circular, dated 6th October, 1977 curtailed the period of deputationists already working abroad with private Firms/ Organizations, asking them to exercise their option by 30th June, 1978 either to return to their jobs from which they had proceeded abroad or to resign from Government service. It was further said in case the options were not received by the due date, necessary action to retire/ dismiss them from service was to be taken. After the receipt of the said instructions the appellant was addressed time and again either to report for duty or to resign from the service but there was no response to the same. A notice dated 27th September, 1981 was issued in pursuance of the directions contained in the Communication and Works Department' letter, dated 30th August, 1981. The appellant was asked to appear for personal hearing firstly on 1st April, 1982 and thereafter on 130' April, 1982 through telegrams in the light of procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, but he did not turn up on one pretext or the other. The appellant was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, and penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the appellant found that the Organization to which he was deputed by the Government to work, had ceased to exist, he had no alternative but to join the Saudi Arabian:Government and continued to serve with the said Government. It has been vehemently argued that according to the law of the Saudi Government no body can leave the said country without the permission of the Saudi Arabian Government as all the immigrant documents including Passport etc. Are physically taken into the custody of the said Government and, therefore, he was helpless to leave the country in order to appear before the Department. In view of the above it has been argued that the absence of the appellant was not wilful and, therefore, the ex parte proceedings taken against him by the Department were both illegal as well as unjustified.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the fact of the matter was that the appellant was only sent on deputation to a Private Firm and as soon as he realised that be was no more required with the said Firm on account of its dissolution, the only course open for him was to come back to his country and to report for duty with the parent Department. According to the learned District Attorney, the act of the appellant to join service with the Saudi Arabian Government was without any legal justification and he purposely did so in order to earn more money, in flagrant violation of Rules of the service to which he belonged and thus cannot be allowed to take shelter behind the act which was wilful as well as mala fide. It has been prayed that the appeal of the appellant be dismissed as being without any force.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that the appellant could not join the Saudi Arabian Government without the permission of the competent authority and thus he purposely was guilty of violation of mandatory rules so laid down in this behalf with regard to the earlier deputation of service with Private Firm for which he was so permitted. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant should have at once left Saudi Arabia, when he found that the Contractor/firm with which he was sent on deputation stood dissolved and had no business to enter into an agreement with the foreign Government and thus created situation for himself, which according to him compelled him to stay in the said country for further service.
8. In view of the above analysis of the factual position of this case, we do not find any exception to interfere with the two impugned orders, which have been so passed against him in a most justified manner. Resultantly we dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.